This is turning into a truly endless debate and it is getting old and tired. There is no way to settle it except to appeal to authority. It's a good debate technique.

Until a consensus develops that alludes to some process of cosmogony other that the HBB theory, I'll stick with the likes of Steven Hawking, Allan Guth, Paul Steinhardt (who proposes an alternative but still likes the HBB), Ed Peebles and Brian Greene et al.

At some point people will have to come down on one side of the fence or the other. I think we are way past that point. It's not a matter of keeping an open mind. It's a matter of accepting reality. The data are in. The jury has returned with a verdict. It is in favor of the HBB theory in at least its general outline, if not in the gory detail.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not a consequence of the HBB hypothesis.These ad hoc explanations stem from the observation of galactic and super galactic motion that does not exactly fit Newton's law of gravity and from the observation of very distant supernova 1a explosions that are too bright to have been dimmed by "grey dust" but dimmer than would be predicted by their red-shifts.

The significance of distant supernova 1a results is not so much that they indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, but that observations of distant supernovae and quasars, both by red-shift and brightness, is not being affected by "grey dust" (or by intergalactic plasma). If these objects are indeed further away than their red-shifts indicate, then this motion has to be explained.

The interpretation has been that since these objects are "moving" faster than we expected and the motion took place way back THEN, it follows that the universe's expansion rate is accelerating NOW. But, it does not follow. I think it indicates the reverse of acceleration - that is, deceleration in the present era.

Recently it has been found that the development of galaxy clusters and superclusters is occurring at different rates in times nearer the present than it did in earlier times. This difference in rates of cluster evolution is more consistent with deceleration than with acceleration. It is believed that superclusters should be large enough to share in the universe's overall expansion rate.

My own study has found that if H naught is graphed versus the midpoints of the ranges of distances (and thus times since time = 0) that were used to find H naught, the values of H naught are seen to decrease with time in a linear regression. See http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/. This is more empirical evidence of deceleration and of the idea that the "acceleration" data is being misinterpreted.

This misinterpretation is understandable since it is exactly backward. Being exactly backward, it works, sort of. Until it runs into reality. Like the spacer arm in the Hubble Telescope that was installed exactly backward. It worked. But only after a hardware fix was installed. You know, that arm is still backward.

Let's stop debating the HBB theory and start discussing some of the consequences of Allan Guth's and Paul Steinhardt's quantum models of inflationary expansion. If the universe was once a quantum point particle called an "inflaton", then it may still be considered a quantum particle. What might this mean?

G'day from the land of ozzzz

The parts within the universe are observed to under go contraction and expansion.

Movements to gravity sinks such as Neutron Stars and the so called black holes. Where there is a process that creates a expansion flow. These are the studies that I'm interested in. The mechansim that triggers the expansion flow is the  key issue. Notice I said parts of the universe and not the total universe expansion.

If you are interested in what I'm reading.

Tokamak

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Tokamak/0/1/0/all/0/1   Spherical  Tokamak Plasma http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+plasma+AND+spherical+tokamak/0/1/0/all/0/1

Reading through also

Paul J. Steinhard

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Steinhardt/0/1/0/all/0/1 and please never ever think that I have a closed mind. I do not want to win a discussion, never is my intention.

G'day from the land of ozzz

Chip said

MANY times you have been provided with the evidence that is accepted as the basis of the Big Bang Theory. 

 Ok you say you have provided evidence, pick one that you think proves the BBT and does not relate or prove any other theory.

 

 

 

Take a peek at http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/ and http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cosmologyandcosmogony/ for a spirited debate on the validity of the HBB theory. The Astronomy forum on cosmogony is a discussion of which I have got really tired recently. I am seeking change-over to an exchange about the implications of a quantum dynamical hypothesis for an inflationary initiation of the HBB.

There seems to be no recognition of such implications. If the universe really did begin as a point particle, called an "inflaton", that appeared in a "false vacuum" by virtue of the tendencey of quantum particles to simply materialize out of nothingness along with their antiparticles, then many questions seem to be settled. But, new ones appear, as is usually the case in science.

For instance, virtual quantum particles that appear out of nothing along with their antiparticles annihillate each other almost instantly. They are called virtual because their lifetime is so brief and they cannot be detected directly. The existence of virtual particles can be proven by studies of muon decay in powerful particle accelerators and by other means.

For a virtual particle to remain in existence and become detectable in its own right, it must appear at the event horizon of a black whole, as has been shown by Steven Hawking. The particle and antiparticle fail to mutually annihilate because one falls into the black hole and the other escapes. If the universe began as such a virtual particle, does this imply that it is or was near the event horizon of an ultramassive black hole?

Our universe may still be in the vicinity of our antiparticle, our anti-universe. It may remain close enough for the gravitational fields of both to overlap. There is much evidence that the reason gravity is difficult to incorporate into unified field theories, grand unified theories or "theories of everything" is that it is unlike the other forces. It can "leak" out of our universe and thus appear to be a very weak force when, in fact, it is the strongest of all the forces. There are quantum phenomena that would allow our universe and our anti-universe to remain near each other for a long time, say, 13.7 billion years, without mutual annihilation.

When quantum particles, which are also quantum wave packets, are detected statistically or even individually, they appear as waveforms and as their interference waveforms as well. In the case of whole universes, these may be regarded as humongous collective quantum states of all the matter and energy that they subsume. Then, there are quantum States A and interference State B for our particle, our universe's waveform, and States A' and B' for our antiparticle or anti-universe.

Furthermore, these interference states, in order to be mathematically well described, must be able to hybridize. They can thus form the superpositions of states: A+B, A-B, A'+B', A'-B', A+A', B+B', A-A', B-B', B'+A, B'-A, A'+B, A'-B. Now, gravity can leak between all these states, there being 16 in all. So, the quantity of matter and energy in any one state may be only 1/16 th of the total. This is 0.0625 of the whole. Or else, maybe it is only about 0.04 of the total, depending on how you add up the States and the individual components of the States. If one eliminates the null states, those having a (-) sign, as possessing no gravitational field, one arrives at either 1/22 or 1/10 of the whole that any one state would contribute snd this would represent 0.045 or 0.10 of the whole. If one takes only the primary States into account then only A, B, A' and B' would superpose. Any one of them contributes 1/4 or 0.25 of the whole. There might be other reasonable combinations.

From our perspective within, say, State A, for instance, we can detect the existence of the whole by various means but we can account for as much as, say, 0.25 of it through the inventory of matter and energy in our universe. Maybe we can account for only 0.04 of it. Regardless, we are tempted to postulate some form of Dark Energy and Dark Matter to make the balance sheet work out right. We do this because we are not used to thinking in terms of the quantum dynamical metaphor and because we simply cannot see these other States. They are invisible and intangible.

The mystery of the "missing antimatter" is also accounted for in this scheme. There is no antimatter in our universe because it was all gathered into existence within our anti-universe and its interference wave, the States A' and B' and, perhaps, the other superposed States with primed components.

But, there is no Dark Energy or Dark Matter. And, because this "missing mass" is all in some other universe, forever seperated from us by all means except through gravity, we will never be able to detect any of it directly.

Dark Matter is accounted for by MOND, modified Newtonian dynamics. The superposition of States requires that a small constant should be added to the right side of Newton's equation for his Law of Gravity. This small constant represents the "missing matter" in galaxies and galactic clusters. It results from leakage of the gravitational field between the superposed States, which may be so similar that they have galaxies and galactic clusters in almost the same positions but in different orientations. In other words, they are not quite congruent. So, the leakage appears as a smeared out, blurry, spherically distributed small but finite contribution to these cosmological objects' gravitational fields.

The matter and energy inventory of our universe does not balance because we have not taken into account the superposition of States. Statistical analysis of the distribution of energy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) shows that it is projected upon the sky as if from a flat surface. This implies that the geometry of the universe is flat, not curved like Einstein thought. For it to be flat, however, means that there is an enormous amount of matter and energy in the universe that is unaccounted for.

Dark Energy was postulated as a source of this "missing mass", energy having a mass-equivalence through Einstein's famous equation. This idea gained traction when some supernovae were observed at enormous distances. Their brightness showed that they are further away than their red-shifts might indicate if the Hubble constant is applied. This means they are receding faster than is expected. The interpretation has been that this discrepancy amounts to acceleration of our universe's expansion NOW, in the more modern era, even though the more rapidly receding supernovae are observed to have existed THEN, in the most distant past.

It is a backward interpretation that succeeds only because it is perfectly backward and therefore it works - sort of. But, then it runs into reality. To explain this acceleration, Dark Energy was invoked as an ad hoc bandaid to patch the wound that this "observation" made in the s0-called "standard model" of the universe and its origin. So, Dark Energy fills the universe with its "missing mass". But, its nature is unknown and it appears to be an untestable hypothesis. There are conjectures about it - that it may be a new kind of field called "quintessence" that results in cosmological objects repelling each other when they are placed at great distances or that it may result from Einstein's cosmological constant. Ignored is the possibility that the data are being misinterpreted.

Instead, we are all supposed to be happy with an almost supernatural explanation for what amounts to sloppy hypothesizing.

Why do so many distinguished scientists take Dark Energy seriously? It is because they can see no other way past the conundrum that they have themselves created out of whole cloth. They are all trained in quantum mechanics and dynamics but the implications of this, the most well-tested theory in all of science, is so anti-intuitive that they refuse to consider it. So, they go for a hypothesis that is even more anti-intuitive.  

Well Stanley, NOW look at the fine mess that you've got us into!

*  *  *  *  *

In a future post I shall explain how the assumption that the Hubble constant is indeed a constant has helped get us all into this mess.

You can see which are the leaders of the herd by watching for the ones who are out front when the stampede changes direction. If we look for the leaders at the time when acceleration became popular and when Dark Energy was first proposed, we can tell who might really be responsible for this joke. Then, we might be able to tell better why this mistake has propagated so far for so long. The Science Citation Index might be useful for this. One of its features is a list of citations by scientists and how often that citation was cited by other scientists in their own papers.

It is difficult for me to spend much time in libraries. But, I shall find out if the SCI is available online. In another future post, I shall report on my finding.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

In order to understand the Big Picture one must understand the parts that make it up.

I'm not saying that I know, I'm saying that I'm learning.

I just keep reading

This topic is very interesting

Pinch Plasma Astrophysics

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+astrophysics+AND+Pinch+plasma/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

It will take me 5 years to cover what I want to research and even than maybe not.

My main objective is to understand the origin and formation of jets and their influence on star formation and galaxy evolution. 

 

 

 

 

I have done my own studies on the Origins of the Universe and as far as our Origin is concerned it can only be theorized and not conclusived. Scientific Investigations had lead to some convincing theories but nothing more. As I posted before what we need to find is the ORIGIN OF SPACE which will lead to the ORIGINS OF ALL THINGS. The Oigins of the Universe is NOT THE ORIGIN OF SPACE. The Universe is like a guest of Space -- it occupies it. I believe that somehow science is missing an oversight. I will tried to explain it again --- space is an entity which at one time contain nothing -- it was empty. This means that after so much time, in our sense of time, something came to occupied it. That something was a pollution to the whole of Space. The problem that I'm having is, just how this something came into being --- thats my problem................................

"I have done my own studies on the Origins of the Universe and as far as our Origin is concerned it can only be theorized and not conclusived. Scientific Investigations had lead to some convincing theories but nothing more. As I posted before what we need to find is the ORIGIN OF SPACE which will lead to the ORIGINS OF ALL THINGS. The Oigins of the Universe is NOT THE ORIGIN OF SPACE. The Universe is like a guest of Space -- it occupies it. I believe that somehow science is missing an oversight. I will tried to explain it again --- space is an entity which at one time contain nothing -- it was empty. This means that after so much time, in our sense of time, something came to occupied it. That something was a pollution to the whole of Space. The problem that I'm having is, just how this something came into being --- thats my problem................................"

*  *  *  *  *

FluFlu writes that the stuff inside the universe must be separate from the universe itself. The matter and energy within it are of a different sort from the space it occupies. This is the classical view.

But, the Theory of Relativity, under intense scrutiny since 1905, has shown that matter, energy, space and time are all of the same fundamental essence. Space-time includes matter and energy by means of its plasticity and metamorphic talent. It is still called a "theory" only because we have not yet been able to observe the inner workings of other universes that might possess this same thread in their fabric. If we ever do observe other universes and we can discern such a thread, Einstein's theory will be referred to as the "Law of Relativity". It might be subsumed by some greater theory or law, but this has happened before to Newton's Laws, for instance, which were circumscribed by the "Theory" of Relativity. But they are still called laws.  

The only theory in science that is more thoroughly confirmed is Quantum Theory. It too is called a theory only because we do not have instances of other universes to study wherein we can find this as a common thread. We should ignore the technicality because it is clear that "Quantum Law" governs the very nature of existence itself. 

To be or not to be. That is the quantum question. Theoretically, there cannot be other universes that do not follow quantum law.

According to the current "standard model" of the universe and its origin, the expanding horizon that we can see with our telescopes may be extrapolated back to even earlier times. Due to the smooth nature of the trajectory that the universe seems to follow, this extrapolation can be extended almost to the very beginning. To do this, it helps to postulate an initial exponential "inflationary" expansion.

But, we cannot extrapolate all the way to t = 0, due only to another technicality. This limit is "theoretically" imposed by the idea that when the universe's history is is run backward it time to the point when it must have been so very extremely dense and hot, then the basis for our normal intuitive understanding of physical laws breaks down, apparently.

But, I think that, solely for purely aesthetic reasons, physicists do not like to extrapolate the history of the universe to a point when it was smaller than a tiny distance derived from the definition of Planck's constant and younger than a fraction of a second smaller than a "Planck time". Well, O.K. It may not be necessary to go further than this anyway, but still, we do it.

According to the inflationary expansion hypothesis, the universe began when a virtual "point particle" materialized in the false vacuum and it failed to annihilate with its antiparticle, or else such annihilation is unecessary when virtual particles materialize in the vast energy sea of the false vacuum. Another view may be that there are orthogonal timelines to our own and annihilation simply has not and never will occur on our timeline.

The false vacuum acts like a huge quantity of superheated water. And the universe, remember, is a quantum entity: a particle or wave packet that is governed by quantum principles.

Quantum science is statistical in nature. It expresses events and processes in terms of probabilities. The appearance of a virtual particle is far more likely to occur in a very high energy state than in a lower one. This is because there are an infinite number of possible very high energy states while the number of potential lower energy states is limited by the fact that one arm of the infinite progression is cut off at zero. And, remember, the false vacuum is already a vast reservoir of almost infinite energy. 

So, when the universe materialized, it instantly acted like a particle of dust in a cauldron of superheated water. This superheated "fluid" began to change phase. The initial catalytic high energy particle and a parcel of the false vacuum began to expand from a point, or from very near a point, to occupy a much larger and larger volume. Energy continuously transferred from the false vacuum to the new true vacuum of space as we know it, helping to fill it with energy in the form of extremely high energy light photons. As the universe expanded further, it began to cool, as expansion normally cools the contents of a system. High energy, intensely dense photons can indeed behave this way, as laser esperiments show.

And, its entropy also began to rise dramatically. When it had cooled far enough, various forms of matter began to condense out of that still small, dense volume of intense light. When it had cooled further, electrons suddenly were able to couple with protons, or with deuterium and helium nuclei, to give a dense neutral gas that was finally transparent to light itself. Previously, the matter/energy soup had been opaque. 

The light that was present when this recombination process was complete is now detectable as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The light that had not condensed into matter was initially of very high energy, distributed according to a Maxwell distribution. The maximum in this distribution is now red-shifted down into the microwave region. But, because it exists within a very broad distribution, there are still a few remnants of this light that are presently still of an extremely high energy. This may be the source of some of the high energy cosmic rays that have been detected.

The hydrogen, deuterium and helium went on to form stars and galaxies while the universe expanded further. Some of the stars where so enormous that they "burned" their hydrgen/deuterium nuclear fuel very quickly and exploded as supernovae.

The cores of supernovae get so hot during this event and their existence in this state is limited in time so much that heavier elements like boron, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, sodium, iron and all the rest of the elements of the periodic table were able to form and become isolated. Once they were suddenly exposed to the lower density and temperatures of intertellar space, the heavier elements were "frozen out" and preserved. This residue of heavy elements mixed with leftover hydrogen and deuterium to form new stars. After several cycles like this, the newer stars had enough of these elements to become surrounded by protoplanetary disks of dust. From this dust came the planets, including our Earth and all its life.

Yes, as Carl Sagan mused, we are stardust: from this dust we came and to dust we shall return.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Gary if you are happy with what you think than thats ok.

But! if you want to get close to understanding the parts of the universe you need to get a better understanding.

I have read what you wrote and its very elimentary.

After reading thousands of papers, it is now that I know that we all know very little. There are some scientists out there researching some interesting topics.

So again read up on how stars form, supernova and how jets are formed and their properties and so on.

 

 

 

, when the universe materialized it instantly acted like a particle of dust.....your understanding is well noted but my problem is that Space is made of  " NOTHING " or is made of something that cannot be decteted or understood by our present conditions. My vision is that I start when there was nothing, no particle of dust, no light and no darkness. This is something somewhat difficult to visualized cause our concept of Space is mixed with the elements and the tendency is that Space is such elements. My starting point therefore, is Space by itself with nothing but Space complete Emptyness. Imagine a sheet of white paper with no lines, now place a small dot on it. The paper represents the whole of Space except that it has no border, no up or down. That single dot becomes a product of the paper and a pollution to the cleanliness of the paper. That dot is the first thing to exist on that paper and it is from that point onward that we start or want to find the Origin but the Origin does not begin with that dot, it start with something else. I think that I'm getting closer to finding it but I loose myself cause Space somehow Produce It and at the same time it contradicts my logic as to how Space will pollute itself. You place the dot on the paper but how will Space place it onto itself, this is the problem that I been having for many years and I'm finally sharing it. Matter is not Space, it occupies Space as all things occupied Space.

 

 

FluFlu,

Not even the vacuum in intergalactic space is truly empty. Nothingness is just a word with no real meaning. A philosopher was once asked "What does the nothing do?" He said, "Why, the nothing nothings!"  You may as well string together nonsense syllables in grammatical form and it would be as enlightening.

The Casimir effect was predicted by this namesake physicist who said that the spontaneous appearance of virtual particles in the vacuum should be detectable and he suggested how to do it. When two relatively small metal plates were suspended by quartz fibers in an extremely good vacuum in such a way that they hung parallel and very close together, the thin quartz fibers, which were arranged to form a sort of sensitive torsion balance, responded to a very small force on the plates. The force could not be ascribed to light pressure or any other source but the pressure from virtual particles on the outside of the plates. The narrow space between the plates supressed the appearance of virtual particles by virtue of their mere existence and proximity, giving a net inward pressure.

Virtual particles can also be detected by their effect on muon decay in high energy particle accelerators. But, virtual particles seem unable to account for "accelerating" expansion of the universe or "dark energy" because the Casimir effect is over 100 orders of magnitude too strong, it is estimated. Besides, it is a mistake to consider space, time, energy and matter to be separate and distinct. The "unity" of the "universe" is real.

It is dangerous and misleading to use analogy and metaphor as if they were mathematically logical. The imprecision in definitions according to ordinary discourse is too limiting and prohibits strong conclusions unless one is so careful as to draw up logic tables and accompany all arguments with conventional symbolic logic. Then, one is not engaging in normal discourse anymore and the process gets extremely cumbersome.

 All evidence points to Einstein as being right. Efforts to go beyond relativity are meeting with some success though. Superstring theory with its sytem of supersymmetry predicts phenomena that are being researched but not yet detected. Quantum loop gravity might gain traction. But these will build on relativity, not supplant it. 

Personally, I like these efforts to unify quantum physics and relativity. But, if the universe is essentially quantum in nature as well as relativistic, we have no business ignoring the implications, which I alluded to in my last post.

Do not be misled by quacks, kooks, crackpots and cranks who evangelize on behalf of a fringe audience, which is substantial, unfortunately. We call their type of logic "pseudoscience" and they never publish their "papers" in peer reviewed journals with impartial referees. ArXiv is not peer reviewed or refereed, much less actively edited. Keep thinking. You have a good idea or two. Don't give up.

 

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Space is infinite in time and matter.

To create the universe and age it to be 13.7Gyrs is like telling the universe you are born now and communicated through out at the same time. There is something wrong with this logic.

As for expansion and acceleration, we do not actually observe it. It is a spacetime thing that maths plays with.

There are many who come onto this site and do not have any idea of any theory and thats OK, its good to air what you think. 

Gary said

All evidence points to Einstein as being right. Efforts to go beyond relativity are meeting with some success though. Superstring theory with its sytem of supersymmetry predicts phenomena that are being researched but not yet detected. Quantum loop gravity might gain traction. But these will build on relativity, not supplant it.

What evidence and can you explain the above.

 

 

The problem with Science is that it wants to explained practically everything through the used of the " scientific methods ". Philosophy also tries to explained by the used of mainly " logic and assumptions ". These two sciences had created a certain kind of  '' Minds " that are somewhat control by accepting that to know something is to be in agreement with one or the other. I hold myself to neither while at the same time I give credit to serious thoughts and investigated work. There is that which is " Nothing " and cannot produce anything. Space is not created it is one unit with no essence, it has no mass and most cannot envision it. This makes it kind of difficult to grasped what Space is and is not but one thing that I'm sure of is that Space is not part of a creation and it cannot be created yet cause of what is in existence it opposed my thoughts as to its own Origin. Its Origin may be itself which is to say that it had no Origin. Space is Space and nothing more and its existence allows for others to exist that then is the purpose of Space. To explain Space is not a difficult tasks but to explain or to find how it became polluted is the greatest of challenges as we are confined to view our environments and everything else that we perceived in the Cosmo deceives us in the wrong directions. Space has no " Time " can't put an age on it and cannot be measure nor seen which brings me back to the same question " how did the first particle or element came into existence ? " If its a product of Space then Space is made of something and therefore causing its own pollution, this waste product of Space may be detected or found at some great distance away from all influence of cosmic energies. Again, if such were the case than there is no Origins of anything and therefore everything " IS " . The Universe is expanding and dark matter is controlling such expansion while Science is left to explain it to us. I don't agree with the part that science must explain it to me.      

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Keep it simple.

Space and matter which includes all forms of energy make up the infinite universe.

Time is a measure for motion from A to B with or without matter.

 

 

 

Thats correct, time is a measure for motion from A to B.  Space by itself has no point from A to B. Space has no motion and is not a vaccum. The obserbable Universe can be define and explain as are particles which are visible and invisible or we can called on all the theories science has created to explain to us its inner working and development. Look at a black hole and assumed that it is consumming everything and spitting it out at some point in another formed of energy or anti-matter or that a theory of everything will do the magic and clear the mind of its confusions. One must step away from conventional wisdom and from the workings of science, re-educate oneself and begin all over again. Existence is like a book so we must read it over and over and each time with a new outlook and an open mind so that little by little we see some light. Everything is there for us to see and to experiment with but there are those who are misleading us and feeding us with false information that are well masked. I had stopped reading their books and I'm mentally writting my own to make sense of our exitence and the existences of others. "Science" on the government part is hiding certain informations that can help us define and understand our universe and existence a little better.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Time is a measure of motion from point A to B with or without the motion of matter. Therefore we could estimate how long light would take to go from A to B without the actual light going across. Not that you would be able to stop it.

As for Black holes and their reality thats another issue.

We know that after a supernova the formation of a Neutron star with a Neutron core is able to form and if there is enough matter the next transition of an ultra dense quark matter composite that is able to create  vector fields able to prevent light from escaping, thus creating the so called black hole so to speak without a singularity and an event horizon.

 

 

 

 

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 This paper maybe of interest to some. If you wish to read , than do so, if you wish to discuss it than do so. I just thought it is worth sharing. Do I think its correct, my opinion is not that important.


http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3354
How flat can you get? A model comparison perspective on the curvature of the Universe
Authors: Mihran Vardanyan (Oxford), Roberto Trotta (Imperial College London), Joe Silk (Oxford)

(Submitted on 21 Jan 2009)

Abstract: The question of determining the spatial geometry of the Universe is of greater relevance than ever, as precision cosmology promises to verify inflationary predictions about the curvature of the Universe. We revisit the question of what can be learnt about the spatial geometry of the Universe from the perspective of a three-way Bayesian model comparison. We show that, given current data, the probability that the Universe is spatially infinite lies between 67% and 98%, depending on the choice of priors. For the strongest prior choice, we find odds of order 50:1 (200:1) in favour of a flat Universe when compared with a closed (open) model. We also report a robust, prior-independent lower limit to the number of Hubble spheres in the Universe, N_U > 5 (at 99% confidence). We forecast the accuracy with which future CMB and BAO observations will be able to constrain curvature, finding that a cosmic variance limited CMB experiment together with an SKA-like BAO observation will constrain curvature with a precision of about sigma ~ 4.5x10^{-4}. We demonstrate that the risk of 'model confusion' (i.e., wrongly favouring a flat Universe in the presence of curvature) is much larger than might be assumed from parameter errors forecasts for future probes. We argue that a 5-sigma detection threshold guarantees a confusion- and ambiguity-free model selection. Together with inflationary arguments, this implies that the geometry of the Universe is not knowable if the value of the curvature parameter is below |Omega_curvature| ~ 10^{-4}, a bound one order of magnitude larger than the size of curvature perturbations, ~ 10^{-5}. [abridged]

 

  Okay Harry we get it, you don't believe in the BBT. But, most of us do, there's tons of documentation out there backing it up, there's no need for any of us here to prove it to you personally, you're more than qualified to go to library and read Brief History of Time or other texts. We also don't need to be hammered endlessly by you and fluflu. Most of us understand the theory quite well and are quite happy with the ramifications. You're not going to change our minds so please stop trying. I really don't appreciate the way you're talking to Gary who has written very well thought out posts on this matter. What you need to understand is the position you are taking is at the fringe and it's no real surprise the reception it's getting.

We (moderators) have deleted a post and reply here today that got personal.

Let's please keep the discussion about the issue and not about the people (members).

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Chip your 110% correct.

The following link is very interesting.

It's not a question of me being correct, its a question of science evidence and whether it can be tested an proven. In many cases evidence here one day gone the next.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2402

A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years

Authors: Geoffrey Burbidge

(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008)

Abstract: This meeting is entitled "A Century of Cosmology." But most of the papers being given here are based on work done very recently and there is really no attempt being made to critically review what has taken place in the last 90 or 100 years. Instead, in general the participants accept without question that cosmology equates to "hot big bang cosmology" with all of its bells and whistles. All of the theory and the results obtained from observations are interpreted on the assumption that this extremely popular model is the correct one, and observers feel that they have to interpret its results in terms of what this theory allows. No one is attempting to seriously test the model with a view to accepting it or ruling it out. They are aware, as are the theorists, that there are enough free parameters available to fix up almost any model of the type.

The current scheme given in detail for example by Spergel et al (206, 2007) demonstrates this. How we got to this stage is never discussed, and little or no attention is paid to the observations obtained since the 1960s on activity in the centers of galaxies and what they imply. We shall show that they are an integral part of a realistic cosmological model. In this paper I shall take a different approach, showing first how cosmological ideas have developed over the last 90 years and where mistakes have been made. I shall conclude with a realistic model in which all of the observational material is included, and compare it with the popular model. Not surprisingly I shall show that there remain many unsolved problems, and previously unexpected observations, most of which are ignored or neglected by current observers and theorists, who believe that the hot big bang model must be correct.

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

These links alter the meaning of black holes and thus alter the way we see things working. It re-enforces a cyclic process.

 

Beam-like Excitations of Kerr-Schild Geometry and Semiclassical Mechanism of Black-Hole Evaporation

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2365

Authors: Alexander Burinskii

(Submitted on 13 Mar 2009)

Abstract: It has been shown (gr-qc/0511131) that exact solutions for electromagnetic (EM) excitations of the Kerr-Schild (KS) geometry form outgoing beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the BH horizon. As a result, interaction of a BH with EM vacuum covers the horizon by a set of fluctuating microholes (0705.3551[hep-th]). We show here that twosheeted twistor structure of the KS geometry corresponds to a holographic structure of quantum BH spacetimes, and scattering of the ingoing vacuum take place on the holographically dual 2+1 source of the Kerr BH. We obtain the corresponding exact KS solutions and show that outgoing radiation contains two components: a) the singular set of the beam pulses which are responsible for the transparency of the horizon and b) regular component which are responsible for BH evaporation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551

Links below 2 off

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131

Rotating "Black Holes" with Holes in the Horizon

Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli

(Submitted on 24 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Kerr-Schild solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations, containing semi-infinite axial singular lines, are investigated.

It is shown that axial singularities break up the black hole, forming holes in the horizon. As a result, a tube-like region appears which allows matter to escape from the interior without crossing the horizon. It is argued that axial singularities of this kind, leading to very narrow beams, can be created in black holes by external electromagnetic or gravitational excitations and may be at the origin of astrophysically observable effects such as jet formation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551

Aligned electromagnetic excitations of a black hole and their impact on its quantum horizon

Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli

(Submitted on 24 May 2007 (v1), last revised 29 Dec 2008 (this version, v5))

Abstract: We show that elementary aligned electromagnetic excitations of black holes, as coming from exact Kerr-Schild solutions, represent light-like beam pulses which have a very strong back reaction on the metric and change the topology of the horizon.

Based on York's proposal, that elementary deformations of the BH horizon are related with elementary vacuum fluctuations, we analyze deformation of the horizon caused by the beam-like vacuum fluctuations and obtain a very specific feature of the topological deformations of the horizon. In particular, we show how the beams pierce the horizon, forming a multitude of micro holes in it. A conjecture is taken into consideration, that these specific excitations are connected with the conformal-analytic properties of the Kerr geometry and are at the base of the emission mechanism.